Please consider the Complete Word Study Dictiuonary (Zodiates/Baker) as a future offering. This is one of the best tools for word study and in depth history of words and their useage. A fantastic resource that, in other study softwares, has been affordable. Especially in comparison to modules like BDAG and etc.

A tool like this is sadly lacking from the Original Languages package and I was very dissapointed to not have a good tool for in depth word study available in the Original Languages package. An affordable offering of the Complete Word Study Dictionary would make the O.L. package complete.

Not as familiar with Mounce but he does appear to have some good material; Zodhiates' work seems to bring a simplicity and more comprehensive approach for the layman who are familiar with Strong's (biased as I've used the hardcover for years). It is a must have for the layman wanting to dive a bit deeper. Add another vote to add The Complete Word Study for OT and NT (NASB) to the Accordance library. Thanks for all you guys do.

Please consider the Complete Word Study Dictiuonary (Zodiates/Baker) as a future offering. This is one of the best tools for word study and in depth history of words and their useage. A fantastic resource that, in other study softwares, has been affordable. Especially in comparison to modules like BDAG and etc.

A tool like this is sadly lacking from the Original Languages package and I was very dissapointed to not have a good tool for in depth word study available in the Original Languages package. An affordable offering of the Complete Word Study Dictionary would make the O.L. package complete.

Seeing as this is somewhat of an older resource my guess is that we would run into issues with obtaining a reliable e-text, which would mean that it isn't necessarily going to be inexpensive if and when we may get it (not to mention I have no idea what kind of terms we would be able to get from the rights holder). This, in combination with the fact that we have a very similar resource already available which is also keyed to the GK and Strong's system, makes me lean heavily toward this not being a worthwhile venture.

I realize the OP may have thought that because it was older it might be easier for us to add it to a bundle, but that isn't necessarily the case. I would love to see Mounce in there, but there are also complications with that.

In any event, I personally think Mounce is worth the investment because it is a solid and modern resource that is integrated into the workflow of Accordance resources. I recommend checking it out if you have used Zodhiates or Vine's in the past.

With all due respect this resource is not that old. It is available for Logos and I have it in WordSearch. I am not certain but it could be available elsewhere.

Just because a resource is newer does not necessarily mean it is better. On the same note I am not saying Complete Word Study is better than Mounce, nor would I say that Mounce is better. I personally will give Mounce a try, it is not that expensive. But it is nice to have more than one voice on a subject, especially if you are used to using that resource on a daily basis.

Complete Word Study really is a great resource in my opinion and it is obvious that others like it as well.

With all due respect this resource is not that old. It is available for Logos and I have it in WordSearch. I am not certain but it could be available elsewhere.

Just because a resource is newer does not necessarily mean it is better. On the same note I am not saying Complete Word Study is better than Mounce, nor would I say that Mounce is better. I personally will give Mounce a try, it is not that expensive. But it is nice to have more than one voice on a subject, especially if you are used to using that resource on a daily basis.

Complete Word Study really is a great resource in my opinion and it is obvious that others like it as well.

All we are asking is if you will look into this resource for us.

Blessings,Tim

Thanks for the additional request, Tim. Before commenting I did look into who the publisher was, when it was written, and what other electronic platforms it is available on. By 'somewhat older' I knew it was early 90s - which is now 20 years old - young in the scope of Biblical studies, somewhat old in recent times. This does not mean it isn't a quality work; I'm sure it is. We just have to be selective in what we pursue, and in this case I have initially concluded that we have a very similar resource devoted to word studies in the Old and New Testaments, and it is not likely that it will be a priority title to pursue given the very long list of items we are already going after. But, I am not the final authority on what we develop - so by all means others are free to chime in and request this or other titles they would like to see - we do read and look into almost every request (even if we don't comment on them).

Interests:Contemplative prayer, ecological stewardship, science-fiction, and cat herding are some of my interests.

Accordance Version:12.x

Platforms:Mac OS X, iOS

Posted 25 October 2012 - 07:16 PM

I have CWSB (KJV based) on my Olivetree reader, it is a fine resource… it is very true not every word is covered but i thought I would compare one from OT and one from the NT more or less at random.

H5315. נֶפֶשׁ nepes: A feminine noun meaning breath, the inner being with its thoughts and emotions. It is used 753 times in the Old Testament and has a broad range of meanings. Most of its uses fall into these categories: breath, literally or figuratively (Jer. 15: 9); the inner being with its thoughts and emotions (Judg. 10: 16; Prov. 14: 10; Ezek. 25: 6); and by extension, the whole person (Gen. 12: 5; Lev. 4: 2; Ezek. 18: 4). Moreover, the term can cover the animating force of a person or his or her dead body (Lev. 21: 11; Num. 6: 6; Jer. 2: 34). It is even applied to animals in a number of the above senses: the breath (Job 41: 21 [13]); the inner being (Jer. 2: 24); the whole creature (Gen. 1: 20); and the animating force (Lev. 17: 11). When this word is applied to a person, it doesn’t refer to a specific part of a human being. The Scriptures view a person as a composite whole, fully relating to God and not divided in any way (Deut. 6: 5; cf. 1 Thess. 5: 23).

4680. σοφοσ sophos; fem. sophe, neut. sophon, adj. In Class. Gr. it not only described respected philosophers and other truly learned men but was also appropriated by vain quibblers and rhetoricians whom Aristophanes parodied and Plato and Aristotle censured. The meaning of sophos in the NT and its Hebr. equivalent, chokmah, differs from the classical meaning in at least two ways. First of all, the biblical concept of wisdom is theocentric rather than anthropocentric. It denotes a fear of God and an understanding of His ways. Lastly, wisdom signifies the possession of a certain adeptness or practical ability. It does not necessarily imply brilliance or scholastic training; rather, sophos indicates adroitness, the ability to apply with skill what one knows (especially religious truth). In some instances, however, particularly in the Pauline writings, the word is used of one who has acquired special information, secret doctrine (musterion [G3466]). Here the noetic aspect of the word is prominent in its meaning. Hence, the following meanings:

Thanks for the comparison, Dan. However, you're comparing Zodhiates to KM Hebrew; I was referring to Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary. It is arranged in English alphabetic order, but doing a Strong's search for H5315 yields 6 hits, the most exhaustive under 'Soul'. Here's a screenshot:

And interestingly, in your example of nephesh from KM Hebrew, if you click the link in the entry of H5315 for the word soul it will take you to this same entry (that's what I was referring to with this resource being integrated into Accordance)

Umm, Rick, I'm reading between the lines here so I may be wrong, but I think you're saying that Zodhiates' works are not considered worthwhile by serious scholars, and that in that respect the works are similar to Vine's dictionary as discussed in this thread:

I have only ever seen Zodhiates' work at a popular rather than scholarly level, aimed at the amateur or layman or user without the biblical languages.
Those who can read the biblical languages have access to a fuller range of scholarly tools and would not therefore use Zodhiates.

Admission: I don't do word studies and I don't use the KJV, (and I think Strong's numbers are outdated too!) so maybe that's the real reason!

What tools, and what methodology, would you therefore recommend for a non-Greek/Hebrew user who wants to go deeper into the Bible?

Umm, Rick, I'm reading between the lines here so I may be wrong, but I think you're saying that Zodhiates' works are not considered worthwhile by serious scholars, and that in that respect the works are similar to Vine's dictionary as discussed in this thread:

I have only ever seen Zodhiates' work at a popular rather than scholarly level, aimed at the amateur or layman or user without the biblical languages.Those who can read the biblical languages have access to a fuller range of scholarly tools and would not therefore use Zodhiates.

Admission: I don't do word studies and I don't use the KJV, (and I think Strong's numbers are outdated too!) so maybe that's the real reason!

What tools, and what methodology, would you therefore recommend for a non-Greek/Hebrew user who wants to go deeper into the Bible?

Thanks

Thanks for the feedback, Allistair. Generally speaking scholars probably do not use resources like this, but that is rather inconsequential to the current discussion here as we definitely pursue titles like this written for non-scholars. And I'm not downplaying the usefulness of this and other resources similar to it.

As far as what I recommend, well, any of our Key Number tagged-texts, theological and bible dictionaries, and exegetical commentaries.

Strong's is outdated in the sense that the system was written a long time ago, but their purpose is still the same: to serve as a bridge to the original language for those who can't (or are learning) to read them. That they bridge the user to the underlying text through our software continues to validate their legitimacy. Just some thoughts here…

Please forgive me if I don't reply any further here…but others are free to chime in on this resource and we will read them and work it into our discussion of the many new titles you all would like to see in Accordance. Thanks!

Interests:Contemplative prayer, ecological stewardship, science-fiction, and cat herding are some of my interests.

Accordance Version:12.x

Platforms:Mac OS X, iOS

Posted 26 October 2012 - 01:49 PM

Thanks for the comparison, Dan. However, you're comparing Zodhiates to KM Hebrew; I was referring to Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary. It is arranged in English alphabetic order, but doing a Strong's search for H5315 yields 6 hits, the most exhaustive under 'Soul'. Here's a screenshot:

And interestingly, in your example of nephesh from KM Hebrew, if you click the link in the entry of H5315 for the word soul it will take you to this same entry (that's what I was referring to with this resource being integrated into Accordance)

My bad, i am sorry for whatever reason I had thought MOUNCE was NT only… and I do realize the CWSB is not an overly scholarly work, but i do find it helpful some times especially for a very quick overview of the words usage. I would not likely buy the dictionaries i use the TWOT and one volume kittel mostly, with more in-depth spiq/westerman and the Zondervan NID.

Back in the 90s, AMG paid a hefty sum to Moody Publishers after it was discovered that Zodhiates had plagiarized much of his Hebrew work from The Theological Word Book of the Old Testament. Moody didn't make AMG withdraw the titles that had used the cribbed content (which I believe included both the Key Study Bible and the Complete Word Study Dictionary), but they did have to pay a royalty, and they also had to begin including Moody copyright notices in addition to their own.

At the time I was working in a Baptist Book Store (now Lifeway) and editions of these works that were already printed began arriving with an insert regarding the additional copyright information.

Obviously, Zodiates is more well known for his Greek than his Hebrew expertise. His excuse when the plagiarized sections came to light was something along the lines that he didn't have time to research the Hebrew content, and it was just easier to "borrow" it from other sources. Obviously, he's not the first to do so, and he won't be the last.

Anyway, like I said, since The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament is available in Accordance, you kind of have half of Zodhiates' work now :-)

I have the Mounce resource mentioned, the word study is more of a gloss than a word study. For dictionary/lexical purposes alone the CWSB is a better tool and something that the Mounce package does not do.
The in depth and historical word definitions is something lacking and would be well filled by CWSB or the Complete Biblical Library

Please consider the Complete Word Study Dictiuonary (Zodiates/Baker) as a future offering. This is one of the best tools for word study and in depth history of words and their useage. A fantastic resource that, in other study softwares, has been affordable. Especially in comparison to modules like BDAG and etc.

A tool like this is sadly lacking from the Original Languages package and I was very dissapointed to not have a good tool for in depth word study available in the Original Languages package. An affordable offering of the Complete Word Study Dictionary would make the O.L. package complete.

FYI: as of this week, the AMG Word Study Dictionaries are now available in Accordance! See yesterday's blog post. Crossgrades are also available if you have these titles in competing software.

Interests:a great cup of coffee, sci-fi, jazz and the blues, kayaking, camping, fishing and the great outdoors

Accordance Version:11.x

Platforms:Mac OS X, iOS

Posted 10 February 2016 - 08:04 AM

[Chuckle] I l know you made that comment tongue-in-cheek, Alistair, but let me clarify for others who are not in the know.

ANY content that is derived from another source should properly documented and credit given. "Plagiarism" applies to the theft of substantial content, not just quoting without attribution (copying and pasting entire paragraphs).